OVERVIEW Equality - CacheFly

Equality for

WomenWhere Do We Stand

on Millennium Development

Goal 3?

Mayra Buvinic Andrew R. Morrison

A. Waafas Ofosu-Amaah and Mirja Sjöblom

Editors

OVERVIEW

EFW_Booklet.indd iEFW_Booklet.indd i 9/19/08 7:38:42 PM9/19/08 7:38:42 PM

© 2009 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank

1818 H Street NW

Washington DC 20433

Telephone: 202-473-1000

Internet: www.worldbank.org

E-mail: [email protected]

All rights reserved.

This volume is a product of the staff of the International Bank for Reconstruction and

Development / The World Bank. The fi ndings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in

this volume do not necessarily refl ect the views of the Executive Directors of The World Bank

or the governments they represent.

The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The

boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work

do not imply any judgement on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any

territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries.

Rights and Permissions

The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of

this work without permission may be a violation of applicable law. The International Bank for

Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and

will normally grant permission to reproduce portions of the work promptly. For permission

to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a request with complete information

to the Copyright Clearance Center Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA; tele-

phone: 978-750-8400; fax: 978-750-4470; Internet: www.copyright.com.

All other queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed

to the Offi ce of the Publisher, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433,

USA; fax: 202-522-2422; e-mail: [email protected].

Cover image by Quang Minh Nguyen, untitled.

Cover design: Naylor Design.

This booklet contains chapter 1, Introduction, Overview, and Future Policy Agenda, as well

as a list of contents from the book Equality for Women: Where Do We Stand on Millennium

Development Goal 3? To order copies of the full-length book, published by the World Bank,

please use the form at the back of this booklet.

EFW_Booklet.indd iiEFW_Booklet.indd ii 9/19/08 7:38:42 PM9/19/08 7:38:42 PM

Contents

Acknowledgments vContributors viiForeword ixAbbreviations xi

1 Introduction, Overview, and Future Policy Agenda 1Mayra Buvinic and Andrew R. Morrison

2 The State of World Progress, 1990–2007 Andrew R. Morrison, Shwetlena Sabarwal, and Mirja Sjöblom

3 Indicators and Indexes of Gender Equality: What Do They Measure and What Do They Miss?

Caren Grown

4 Monitoring Progress in Gender Equality in the Labor Market

P. Zafi ris Tzannatos

5 The Financial Requirements of Achieving Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment

Caren Grown, Chandrika Bahadur, Jessie Handbury,

and Diane Elson

6 What Money Can’t Buy: Getting Implementation Right for MDG3 in South Asia

Maitreyi Bordia Das

7 Policy Interventions to Meet the MDG3 Challenge in Developing Countries: Experiences from Mexico

Miguel Székely

8 Gender Mainstreaming: Making It Happen Rekha Mehra and Geeta Rao Gupta

Index

iii

EFW_Booklet.indd iiiEFW_Booklet.indd iii 9/19/08 7:38:43 PM9/19/08 7:38:43 PM

EFW_Booklet.indd ivEFW_Booklet.indd iv 9/19/08 7:38:43 PM9/19/08 7:38:43 PM

Acknowledgments

Many people deserve recognition for taking part in the production of this book.

The genesis of the volume was the February 2006 High-Level Consulta-tion “Promoting the Gender Equality Millennium Development Goal: The Implementation Challenge.” We would like to acknowledge the support for this event from the government of Norway, the government of the United Kingdom, the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development (OECD/DAC) Network on Gender Equality, and UN system colleagues (including the United Nations Development Fund for Women, the UN Division for the Advancement of Women, and the UN Millennium Project). We acknowledge the dedication of the task team for the consultation, consisting of staff from the Gender and Development Group at the World Bank, who worked tirelessly on the consultation and its follow-up.

We are deeply grateful to the chapter authors for their intellectual contributions and for sharing our commitment to gender equality. We are thankful to Blanca Moreno-Dodson and Maria-Beatriz Orlando, who reviewed each chapter and provided thoughtful comments and suggestions that greatly enhanced the overall quality of this publication. Shwetlena Sabarwal deserves special thanks for help beyond the call of duty in revis-ing the volume and for providing constructive comments and support. We also express our gratitude to Dorthea Damkjær and Patti O’Neill of the OECD/DAC Network on Gender Equality for providing support to the edi-tors. We are most appreciative of the help from the World Bank Offi ce of the Publisher (Denise Bergeron, Stephen McGroarty, and Dina Towbin) who supported us throughout the production process and contributed to successfully turning the manuscript into a book. The government of Norway funded this project through the Norwegian Trust Fund for Gender Mainstreaming (GENFUND). Without their generous support this book would not have seen the light of day.

v

EFW_Booklet.indd vEFW_Booklet.indd v 9/19/08 7:38:43 PM9/19/08 7:38:43 PM

EFW_Booklet.indd viEFW_Booklet.indd vi 9/19/08 7:38:43 PM9/19/08 7:38:43 PM

Contributors

Chandrika Bahadur, UN Millennium ProjectMayra Buvinic, Gender and Development, World BankMaitreyi Bordia Das, South Asia Sustainable Development, World BankDiane Elson, Department of Sociology, Essex University, U.K.Caren Grown, Department of Economics, American University, Washington, DCGeeta Rao Gupta, International Center for Research on Women (ICRW)Jessie Handbury, UN Millennium Project Rekha Mehra, ICRWAndrew R. Morrison, Gender and Development, World BankShwetlena Sabarwal, Gender and Development, World BankMiguel Székely, Undersecretary for Middle Education, Ministry of Public Education, MexicoMirja Sjöblom, Development Research Group, World BankP. Zafi ris Tzannatos, World Bank Institute, Human Development, World Bank

vii

EFW_Booklet.indd viiEFW_Booklet.indd vii 9/19/08 7:38:43 PM9/19/08 7:38:43 PM

EFW_Booklet.indd viiiEFW_Booklet.indd viii 9/19/08 7:38:43 PM9/19/08 7:38:43 PM

ix

Foreword

There is compelling evidence of the importance of gender equality for poverty reduction and sustainable growth. So it should come as no surprise that most development actors—international agencies, bilateral donors, and most developing countries—have an offi cial policy for promoting gen-der equality. Millennium Development Goal 3 (MDG3) on gender equality and women’s empowerment is our shared global commitment.

With only seven years remaining until the end date for the MDGs, it is an opportune time to take stock of where the world stands in terms of progress toward gender equality. This volume documents trends both on the offi cial MDG3 indicators and on an expanded set of indicators that provide a more complete measure of gender equality—especially in the area of women’s economic empowerment. The message that emerges is both hopeful and sobering: progress toward equality in capabilities (for example, education) has been considerable, but progress toward equality of opportunities for women’s economic livelihoods leaves much to be desired.

Beyond tracking trends toward gender equality, the volume reviews different measures of gender equality and estimates the fi nancial resources required to achieve this objective. While necessarily imprecise, such esti-mates can provide a rough guide as to whether the level of effort devoted by international donors and developing countries is adequate in the area of women’s economic empowerment.

Equality for Women also makes clear that adequate funding is necessary, but not suffi cient: policies must also be appropriate, and execution of these policies must be reasonably effi cient—both at the national level and within international agencies charged with supporting national governments. Only when these three elements—funding, policy, and execution—are aligned will progress toward gender equality be rapid.

The collaboration between the World Bank and the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD/DAC) on this subject began in 2006, when we

EFW_Booklet.indd ixEFW_Booklet.indd ix 9/19/08 7:38:44 PM9/19/08 7:38:44 PM

jointly cosponsored, with the governments of Norway and the United Kingdom and UN-system colleagues, a high-level consultation on the implementation challenges facing MDG3. Awareness at this consultation that the Bank and its partners could do signifi cantly more to promote gen-der equality resulted in the Bank’s announced commitment to produce a gender action plan in 100 days.1 Our collaboration deepened during the plan’s preparation. The OECD/DAC Network on Gender Equality provided a venue for useful deliberations on successive drafts, and we have contin-ued our joint efforts in the fi rst phases of the plan’s implementation.

The World Bank and the OECD/DAC are pleased to publish this volume as a contribution to the debate on how to most effectively pro-mote gender equality, poverty reduction, and growth. We are grateful to the government of Norway for its generous support of this volume and the high-level consultation.

Danny Leipziger Eckhard DeutscherVice President ChairpersonPoverty Reduction and Economic Development Assistance Management CommitteeWorld Bank OECD

1 World Bank and International Finance Corporation, September 2006, “Gender Equality as Smart Economics: A World Bank Group Gender Action Plan,” World Bank, Washington, DC.

x Foreword

EFW_Booklet.indd xEFW_Booklet.indd x 9/19/08 7:38:44 PM9/19/08 7:38:44 PM

xi

Abbreviations

AfDB African Development BankADB Asian Development BankASFR age-specifi c fertility rateCCT conditional cash transferDAC Development Assistance CommitteeDHS Demographic and Health SurveyEAP East Asia and Pacifi cECA Europe and Central AsiaGAP Gender Action PlanGDI Gender-related Development IndexGDP gross domestic productGE gender equalityGEM Gender Empowerment MeasureGER gross enrollment rateGMR Global Monitoring ReportGNP gross national productGPI gender parity indexHDI Human Development IndexHIV/AIDS human immunodefi ciency virus/acquired immune

defi ciency syndromeICOR incremental capital ouput ratioIDB Inter-American Development BankILO International Labour OrganizationISCED International Standard Classifi cation of EducationISCO International Standard Classifi cation of OccupationsISIC International Standard Industrial Classifi cationIT information technologyLAC Latin America and the CaribbeanMDG Millennium Development GoalMDG3 Millennium Development Goal Number 3MENA Middle East and North AfricaNER net enrollment rate

EFW_Booklet.indd xiEFW_Booklet.indd xi 9/19/08 7:38:44 PM9/19/08 7:38:44 PM

NGO nongovernmental organizationNTGE nontargeted gender equalityODA offi cial development assistanceOECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentSAR South Asia RegionSIGE Standardized Index of Gender EqualitySSA Sub-Saharan AfricaUAE United Arab EmiratesUIS UNESCO Institute of StatisticsUN United NationsUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeUNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientifi c and Cultural

OrganizationUNIFEM United Nations Development Fund for WomenUNRISD United Nations Research Institute for Social Development

All dollar amounts are U.S. dollars.

xii Abbreviations

EFW_Booklet.indd xiiEFW_Booklet.indd xii 9/19/08 7:38:44 PM9/19/08 7:38:44 PM

1

1Introduction, Overview, and Future Policy Agenda

Mayra Buvinic and Andrew R. Morrison

The international community, upon signing the Millennium Declaration in 2000, committed itself to eight development goals with time-bound

targets and measurable indicators. This defi nition of goals raised the bar for measuring countries’ performance on ambitious development objectives, including goal 3 to “promote gender equality and empower women.”

The target for goal 3 was defi ned as “eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary education, preferably by 2005, and at all levels of education no later than 2015.” This target was operationalized as the ratio of girls’ to boys’ enrollment in primary, secondary, and tertiary education. Three other indicators were added to Millennium Development Goal 3 (MDG3): the ratio of literate females to males among 15- to 25- year-olds, the share of women in wage employment in the nonagricultural sector, and the proportion of seats held by women in national parliaments.

This defi nition of gender equality and women’s empowerment has been criticized as overly narrow. Some even felt that gender- equality issues lost ground with the Millennium Declaration— that the declaration displaced the importance given to gender equality for development at the Beijing UN World Conference on Women (1995) with a narrower defi nition of gender equality in the formulation of its goals.

The inclusion of MDG3 in the Millennium Declaration, however, has spurred useful national and international efforts to improve measurement of gender equality and women’s empowerment and, as logical follow up, to identify what is needed to speed countries’ progress toward MDG3. The work on metrics has expanded the number of indicators used to assess MDG3 and measure countries’ performance (UNDP 2005; World Bank 2007a). The work on what it takes to implement MDG3 has focused on review-ing donor agencies’ and client countries’ experience with mainstreaming gender issues and on quantifying the resources needed to scale up MDG3 implementation at the country level.

EFW_Booklet.indd 1EFW_Booklet.indd 1 9/19/08 7:38:45 PM9/19/08 7:38:45 PM

2 Buvinic and Morrison

This volume brings together these efforts and updates them. It assesses countries’ progress at the midpoint between the Millennium Declaration and 2015—the end date for attaining the goals— using an expanded set of indicators that better capture gender equality and women’s empowerment. The book also discusses various implementation constraints to achieving MDG3 as well as what is required in terms of fi nancing and changes in policies to achieve MDG3 by 2015.

To set the stage for this midpoint review of progress toward MDG3, this chapter fi rst summarizes the volume’s main messages. Chapter 2 takes stock of the world’s progress to date in achieving MDG3 using the expanded set of indicators. It charts countries’ progress over time and, where possible, benchmarks country performance against regional trends. Chapter 3 reviews methodological issues with available indicators and composite indexes of gender equality and chapter 4 provides an in-depth analysis of how to measure gender equality in labor markets—a critical indicator for MDG3, especially for middle-income countries. Chapter 5 estimates, for the fi rst time, the minimum fi nancial resources required to achieve MDG3 by identifying the costs of interventions aimed at promot-ing gender equality and women’s empowerment across sectors. To empha-size that adequate funding is a necessary but not suffi cient precondition for achieving MDG3, chapter 6 turns the focus to institutional and imple-mentation-related impediments to achieving MDG3, drawing on evidence from several countries in South Asia. Chapter 7 underscores how cultural norms and traditions shape behavior and stand in the way of attaining gender equality in Mexico. The fi nal chapter focuses on the main tool international agencies and national governments have used to promote gender equality since the World UN Women’s Conference in Beijing in 1995—gender mainstreaming. Chapter 8 reviews progress in gender main-streaming and highlights challenges and implementation constraints.

The chapter begins with an overview of the main messages of the volume. Then, the effi ciency rationale for MDG3 is presented, including the pathways through which gender equality leads to poverty reduction and economic growth. The following sections give a brief introduction to ways to measure gender equality and women’s empowerment along with a summary of the current status of offi cial and new MDG3 indicators. The subsequent section turns to public policy to promote gender equality and discusses laws, institutions, and policies. The fi nal sections provide a summary of the fi nancial requirements to achieve MDG3.


Introduction, Overview, and Future Policy Agenda 3

Main Messages

The good news is that 82 of 122 countries for which data are available achieved the offi cial MDG3 target of gender parity in primary and second-ary enrollment by 2005. However, 19 countries are seriously off track to meet this target, even by 2015. In general, progress in expanding women’s opportunities has lagged behind progress in expanding women’s capabili-ties. Efforts are needed to “level the playing fi eld” for women so they can use their increased capabilities in the economy and society.

Better indicators are needed to measure progress toward gender equal-ity, especially in economic participation. Numerous attempts have been made to develop indexes of gender equality. While indexes are useful in focusing public opinion on an issue and in galvanizing political will to take action, policy is best informed by a set of individual indicators. An analysis of country performance on gender equality and empowerment using an expanded set of indicators reveals few high- performing countries and many low- performing ones.

Gender equality requires changing underlying social norms in addi-tion to observable outcomes. One particularly promising approach to changing social norms is to use fi nancial incentives to change the behavior of families toward girls and women, provided that the incentives are adequate and sustained.

Gender- specifi c and gender- mainstreaming actions— as well as gender- neutral or nontargeted MDG interventions— are needed to achieve MDG3.1 Estimates of the costs associated with these interventions show that the largest share of costs is accounted for by gender- neutral interventions, while the lowest share is accounted for by gender- specifi c interventions. Gender- specifi c interventions, however, may incur additional political and eco-nomic costs associated with targeting interventions to girls and women.

It is premature to judge the success or failure of gender- mainstreaming efforts by international fi nancial institutions or by bilateral donors, largely because mainstreaming has not been fully implemented in country opera-tions. Two important lessons learned from attempts to mainstream gender are (i) gender mainstreaming should be more narrowly targeted to sectors where change is needed and (ii) it is much easier to build a business case for mainstreaming by building a project record than by broad- brush orga-nizational mandates.

Changes in laws, institutions, and policies all matter for scaling up gender-equality objectives. Most of these changes come with a price tag.



Sometimes the funding to implement these changes is available in domestic budgets but is not fully used because of institutional bottlenecks. Many other times, domestic budgets do not cover expenditures for MDG3, even in cases where the changes were included in planned budgets.

Both domestic and donor resources need to be mobilized to fi nance MDG3 interventions. Given desirable domestic commitment of resources to gender- specifi c and gender-mainstreaming interventions, the remain-ing financing gap— estimated at about $13 billion yearly using UN Millennium Project calculations— could be met if donors, private foun-dations, and other nontraditional sources of funding increased spending on MDG3.

The Effi ciency Rationale

Why might gender equality matter? The fi rst possible answer is that gender equality is desirable in and of itself— it has intrinsic value. MDG3 is evi-dence of the international community’s commitment to the intrinsic value of gender equality.

Many would argue that inequalities based solely on one’s biological make up are inherently unfair and unjust. But to delve any further into the issue requires that a distinction be made between inequalities of oppor-tunity and inequalities in outcome. Rawls’ version of “fairness” refers to a world in which outcomes may be unequal, but where one does not know whether one will end up with a relatively favorable or unfavorable outcome (Rawls 1971).

Roemer (1993, 2002) has argued that social welfare cannot be maximized if outcomes differ because of individuals’ differential cir-cumstances, where circumstances refer to factors that individuals cannot control. Differential outcomes that refl ect differential effort or individual choice, however, are consistent with maximization of social welfare.

Clearly, educational gaps or earnings gaps that are ordained at birth for women would not be “fair” in a Rawlsian or Roemerian sense; conversely, wage gaps that refl ect only differences in skills and productivity could be labeled a fair outcome.

Beyond any notion of fairness, however, gender inequalities in capa-bilities and opportunities are ineffi cient. The World Bank’s 2007 Global Monitoring Report (World Bank 2007a), summarizing a large body of research, outlined several pathways by which gender inequalities in rights, resources, and voice lead to increases in poverty and potentially— although



the evidence is signifi cantly less strong on this score— to lower growth.2 One important pathway goes from equality of opportunity through par-ticipation in labor, land, fi nancial, and product markets, while the other pathway links equality of opportunity for women to improved children’s well- being. Both pathways end in accelerated poverty reduction, increased productivity, and potentially more rapid growth (see fi gure 1.1).

Women’s ability to participate productively in the labor market is con-strained in many regions, both by women’s lower educational levels rela-tive to men’s and by social norms. Wage gaps that do not refl ect underlying productivity differentials, in turn, may be a disincentive for women to seek employment and for parents to invest in the education of girls, which would allow them to successfully compete in labor markets in the future. (There is extremely limited empirical evidence to support these disincentive effects; however, see Anderson, King, and Wang [2003].)

As noted in the World Development Report 2008 (World Bank 2007b), land is the most important productive asset for households engaged in

FIGURE 1.1 Women’s Earnings, Children’s Well-Being, and Aggregate Poverty Reduction and Economic Growth: The Pathways

Increased gender equality in households, markets, and society

Improved children’s well-beingIncreased women’s labor forceparticipation, productivity, and earnings

Current poverty reductionand economic growth

Future poverty reductionand economic growth

Income and consumptionexpenditure

Differential savings ratesBetter health and

educationalattainment and

greater productivityas adults

Mother’s greater control overdecision making in household

Women havebetter

education andhealth

Women have betteraccess to markets

Source: World Bank 2007a, 109.



agricultural production. Yet, the distribution of land ownership is heavily skewed toward men. In a set of Latin American countries, 70–90 percent of titles to farmland are held exclusively by men (Deere and Leon 2003); land holding is similarly skewed toward men in Sub- Saharan Africa (Doss 2005; Udry 1996; Quisumbing, Estudillo, and Otsuka 2004). While land titling programs in some countries and regions are beginning to emphasize joint titling, much work on that issue remains to be done.

Access to credit is an important determinant of productivity and earn-ings for fi rms and for the self- employed. Although unexpected, there is little evidence from developing countries that women face differential treatment in fi nancial markets after controlling for observable factors— at least, as measured by higher loan rejection rates or higher interest rates; rather, the limited evidence suggests that women are less likely to seek credit than are men (Baydas, Meyer, and Aguilera-Alfred 1994; Buvinic and Berger 1990; Storey 2004; Ratusi and Swamy 1999).

Women appear to have lower rates of adoption of technological inno-vations that determine farmers’ access to agricultural product markets. Most of the evidence suggests that many of women’s barriers to adoption are not related to the characteristics of the technology but originate in other markets relevant to the adoption decision, such as land, labor, credit, and information. For example, Croppenstedt, Demeke, and Meschi (2003) fi nd that female- headed households in Ethiopia have signifi cantly lower endowments of land, and that land size is a signifi cant positive determinant of fertilizer use.

Agricultural extension services also often fail to reach female farm-ers, in particular, female- headed farming households, even though female farmers often indicate a strong demand for such services (Saito, Mekonnen, and Spurling 1994). Summarizing evidence from six studies in Sub- Saharan Africa in the 1980s, Quisumbing (1994) reported that male-headed house-holds were roughly 30–220 percent more likely to have ever had contact with an extension agent than female- headed households.

The second channel by which gender equality affects poverty and pro-ductivity is through children’s well- being. Abundant empirical evidence supports the notion that increased control over resources by women leads to better child development outcomes, including educational attainment and nutrition. Thus, contemporaneous, nonmonetary measures of poverty may register improvements as a result of women’s increased control over resources— and future monetary and nonmonetary measures of poverty will be affected by the higher human capital and earnings potential of chil-dren with better nutrition, health, and educational outcomes.



Early studies in this vein from the 1980s and early 1990s measured women’s control over resources using data on individual earnings and asset ownership, but current earnings and asset ownership are clearly endog-enous: they both affect and are affected by women’s ability to infl uence household decision making. A second generation of studies attempted to deal with this endogeneity by proxying for control over resources or bargain-ing power with measures of resources brought to marriage. The argument is that resources brought to marriage are exogenous to decision making after marriage, but this assertion has also been questioned.

Most recently, studies have employed a “natural experiment” approach, examining the effect on intrahousehold resource allocation of receiving old- age pension benefi ts, conditional cash transfers, and loans from micro-credit programs targeted at women. Pitt and Khandker (1998) fi nd that female borrowing from micro-credit institutions has had a larger impact on children’s enrollment in school than does borrowing by males. Rubalcava, Teruel, and Thomas (2004) demonstrate that conditional cash transfers in Mexico received by women increase the share of household budgets spent on education, children’s clothing, and meat, while the share of expendi-tures spent on male clothing, transport, and other types of food declined. In an evaluation of a pension program in South Africa, Dufl o (2003) fi nds that pensions received by grandmothers result in weight gains for young girls in the household, while pensions received by grandfathers have no such effect. Natural experiments or randomized designs offer the stron-gest evidence on the causal links between women’s control over resources and subsequent household decisions about resource allocation (Morrison, Raju, and Sinha 2007).

One particularly important realm of household decision making is fertility choice. To the extent that greater gender equality allows women to exercise more control over their fertility, one would expect better child development outcomes because of lower dependency ratios and standard quantity- quality tradeoffs in children.

Measuring Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment

Gender equality and women’s empowerment are not synonymous and, therefore, cannot be tracked using a single indicator. Equality indicators measure women’s status relative to men’s status and are expressed as ratios, while empowerment indicators measure changes in absolute levels of women’s well- being.



Care must be used in interpreting measures of equality because perfect equality (a ratio of one) may indicate equality of deprivation rather than equality of opportunity. The most obvious example is the case of some countries (Haiti and Zimbabwe, for example) that show parity between the sexes in secondary school enrollment— but at very low levels of enrollment for both boys and girls (World Bank 2007a).

Empowerment indicators often are confl ated with indicators of gender equality, but should not be. Measures of women’s empowerment include indicators that are specifi c to women and that measure changes in absolute values for women rather than in comparison with men. These indicators include, notably, reproductive health measures and incidence and preva-lence data on violence against women. The former are widely available and comparable, while indicators of violence against women have only recently begun to be collected systematically. Comparable violence indicators are available for only a handful of countries (see WHO [2002]). Another class of indicators of women’s empowerment includes those that measure women’s decision- making power in both private (household) and public (governance) life. Again, these indicators are not widely available.

Perhaps the most important distinction between measures of gender equality is between index approaches and individual indicators.

While an index can be useful for creating a summary statistic that cap-tures media and policy attention, associated problems (such as the choice of weights and methods of aggregation) complicate its interpretation and, therefore, make it less useful for informing policy makers.

The Millennium Declaration defi ned a set of four associated indicators (as reviewed above), rather than an index, to measure MDG3. These indi-cators provide important but incomplete measures of achievements (since 1990) in gender equality.

To address the shortcomings of the offi cial MDG3 indicators—and in particular to do a better job of measuring health status and economic empowerment—this volume argues for the use of an “MDG3 plus” approach—using offi cial MDG3 indicators, but supplementing them with additional indicators where feasible and appropriate.3

Progress on MDG3 at the Midpoint

Using the MDG3 plus approach, the World Bank (2007a) and Morrison, Sabarwal, and Sjöblom (chapter 2) provide the most up-to-date snapshot on the status of countries’ progress at midpoint (2007) in meeting the third Millennium Development Goal.



Progress on the Offi cial MDG3 Target

First, 82 out of 122 countries achieved the offi cial MDG3 midterm target of parity in primary and secondary schooling by 2005.4 Only one country that did not achieve parity in 2005 is on track to achieve it by 2015. Some 19 countries are off track or unlikely to achieve the target by 2015. Of these 19 countries, 13 are in Sub- Saharan Africa. So unless these countries sig-nifi cantly intensify actions to increase girls’ school enrollment, the offi cial MDG3 goal will not be attained.

The substantial gains in enrollment and parity rates in primary and secondary schooling in the years since 1990, even in countries that started with low enrollment levels, show that scaling up concerted policies to increase and equalize enrollment rates between the genders can make a difference (World Bank 2007a).

The offi cial MDG3 indicators concern themselves only with the ratio of girls to boys in enrollment but are silent on the absolute levels of enrollment. This comes with the obvious hazard of attributing “good” performance to countries where there is not much gender disparity in school enrollment even though overall enrollment rates (primary, secondary, or both) are not high. Clearly, policy should be informed not just by gender-equality concerns but also by the overall levels of education attainment.

A fi rst challenge is to scale up educational interventions in the coun-tries that currently are projected not to meet the target for gender equal-ity in primary and secondary schooling. A second challenge is to increase the education level of girls in secondary school in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia and the education level of girls and boys in tertiary school-ing in all regions, except Europe and Central Asia, where levels are already high. Without rising educational levels, the goal of women’s empowerment will be diffi cult to achieve. And these rising levels need to be realized in excluded groups, especially girls who are doubly disadvantaged by being female and by belonging to racial, ethnic, or other excluded groups (Lewis and Lockheed 2007).

A third challenge is to increase the completion rate of education for all, along with a specifi c focus on keeping girls in school. The latter objective is particularly a challenge for countries such as Malawi, Mauritania, Oman, and Rwanda, which have very high female- to- male primary enrollment ratios (70 and above), but where fewer than 50 percent of girls complete pri-mary schooling. There are 21 countries in the World Bank data set where this phenomenon is observed (Morrison, Sabarwal, and Sjöblom [chapter 2]). These countries need to implement and scale up gender- specifi c policies to



eliminate discriminatory policies and behaviors of teachers in schools as well as to target stipends and other incentives to parents and communities to keep girls in school.

The last challenge addresses the gap in opportunities, which was fi rst underscored by the late Mahbub ul Haq in 1995 (UNDP 1995). When com-paring indicators of capabilities (education and health) with those of oppor-tunities (employment and political participation), it is clear that progress in expanding women’s opportunities in the economy and in society has lagged behind progress in expanding their capabilities. Figure 1.2 shows this uneven progress using the offi cial MDG3 indicators. The share of girls enrolled in pri-mary and secondary schooling has improved substantially since 1990. At the same time, however, the share of women in nonagricultural employment and in parliaments has grown only modestly. Gender-equality policy needs to seek ways to level the playing fi eld for women so they can use their increased capabilities in the economy and in society. Not to do so is not only unfair; it is ineffi cient.

Progress on the MDG3 Plus Approach

Information on the state of progress is much richer when the offi cial MDG3 indicators are complemented by the additional six indicators described above. The additional indicators recommended in our MDG3 plus approach are: i) primary completion rates disaggregated by gender; ii) under-five mortality rates disaggregated by gender; iii) percentage of reproductive-age women and their partners using modern contraception; iv) percentage of 15- to 19-year old girls who are mothers or pregnant with their fi rst child; v) labor force participation rates for 20- to 24- and 25- to 49-year olds, disaggre-gated by gender; and vi) average hourly wages, also disaggregated by gender.

The numbers presented in chapter 2 clearly show that no one coun-try or region has achieved gender equality in all the areas covered by this expanded set of indicators. Most countries have varying scores across indi-cators, showing that progress is sector or area specifi c.

The comparison of school attendance with labor force participation rates signals the need for targeted investments to adolescent girls to expand their economic opportunities so they will not be left behind in the transition from schooling to the labor market (see Buvinic, Guzmán, and Lloyd [2007]; Morrison, Sabarwal, and Sjöblom [chapter 2]). These policies are especially relevant for regions that have achieved parity or close to parity in school enrollment but exhibit wide gender gaps in labor force participation, such as Latin America and the Caribbean and Europe and Central Asia. Sub- Saharan



Africa is the only region for which the data suggest that the emphasis (to date, at least) should be in closing the gender gaps in schooling rather than on promoting labor force participation.

The health indicators single out the comparatively high mortality rates of girls under age 5 in East Asia and Pacifi c and South Asia, as well as the high adolescent fertility rates in 36 countries, with a majority of those countries

FIGURE 1.2Progress in Offi cial Indicators of Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment, by Region, 1990–2005

Source: World Bank 2007a, 11.

Note: The regional averages are calculated using the earliest value between 1990 and 1995 and the latest value between 2000 and 2005. The averages are weighted by the country population size in 2005.

Sub-

Saha

ran A

frica

East

Asia an

d Pac

ific

Euro

pe an

d Cen

tral A

sia

Latin

Ameri

ca an

d the

Caribb

ean

Midd

le Ea

st an

d

North

Africa

South

Asia

Reg

ion

shar

e of

wom

en

0

0.5

1.0

0

0.5

1.0

fem

ale-

to-m

ale

ratio

1990 female-to-male ratio inprimary school

2005 female-to-male ratio inprimary school

1990 share of women in parliament2005 share of women in parliament

1990 share of women in nonagriculturewage employment

2005 share of women in nonagriculturewage employment

1990 female-to-male ratio insecondary school

2005 female-to-male ratio insecondary school



being in Sub- Saharan Africa. These data suggest the need to implement policies to deter infanticide and neglect of girl children, in the former instance, and to provide access to reproductive health services to adolescents, in the lat-ter case. Policies to deter infanticide and the neglect of girl infants through prohibition of sex selection technology have not worked well (Das Gupta, 2007). Similarly, the recent use of cash incentives to mothers to infl uence sex ratios at birth seem to have worked only in the very short term in one pro-gram, partly perhaps because payouts were not maintained over time (Holla, Jensen, and Oster 2007). The one intervention that appears to have reduced son preference in rural India was the availability of cable television, suggesting the potential effect of the media in changing norms (Jensen and Oster 2007). There are, however, well-known, cost-effective interventions to prevent teen pregnancies that countries with high teenage pregnancy rates can adopt.

The two added economic indicators—labor force participation data and the ratio of female to male hourly wages—give a more nuanced picture of progress in equality of economic opportunities for women and men. The labor force participation indicator makes the important point that much of women’s work in all world regions is in wage employment in agriculture and in self- employment, dimensions that are not captured in the offi cial MDG indicator. Especially useful are the wage data that add information on the quality of women’s work in the marketplace. Such countries as Cambodia, Latvia, Macedonia, Mongolia, Panama, and Thailand, with high participa-tion of women in wage employment in the nonagricultural sector, also have relatively high female- to-male wage rates (0.80 or higher). Other countries, however, have high female participation with comparatively low wages for women. Brazil, Mexico, Paraguay, and Tajikistan fall into this latter group and might consider implementing policies to reduce gender wage gaps (see chapter 2).

However, without data on levels, data on gender wage gaps can be mis-leading. Women in the Middle East and North Africa have higher female relative wages than women in high-income European or East Asian econo-mies, but this is likely an indication of selectivity (mostly women with high returns to market labor work as part of a small female labor force in Middle East and North African countries, and their wages are compared with male wages based on all male workers— those with high and those with low wages) rather than greater gender equality (Tzannatos 2007).

In addition to wage data, indexes of occupational segregation can be used to gauge progress in gender equality in the economy, especially in middle- income countries for which data are more readily available. Again, however,



reductions in segregation do not necessarily imply improvement in women’s labor market position; the feminization of previously male- dominated jobs can be associated with depressed wages for both genders (Tzannatos 2007).

The set of MDG3 plus indicators is perhaps most usefully applied to assess the performance of individual countries when compared with or benchmarked against a standard. Comparing a suite of indicators for a country with a benchmark identifi es areas of policy priority and can also be used to evaluate the progress of countries through the use of scorecards that can garner public attention similar to that attracted by indexes.

Comparatively few countries are high performers and very few countries are repeat high performers in different dimensions of gender equality. The highest performers compared to regional averages across indicators (one standard deviation above the regional average) are Argentina, Lithuania, Maldives, and Tunisia. Many more countries are repeat low performers in one or more dimensions of gender equality. Chad, Guatemala, Niger, and Turkey are low performers (one standard deviation below the regional average) across the range of indicators, even though in Chad, education and employment indicators improved signifi cantly in the last decade (chapter 2).

Country variability in rankings across indicators suggests that prog-ress in gender equality is sector or dimension specifi c. Correspondingly, policies need to be specifi c. It cannot be assumed, for instance, that meeting the MDG3 offi cial target of parity in schooling, even along with high levels of schooling, will necessarily translate into gender equality in other dimensions.

The MDG3 plus indicators, however, still fall short in capturing important dimensions of gender equality and women’s empowerment for which data are unavailable, including indicators of voice, participation and citizenship, and security. At the national level, however, some coun-tries have customized the offi cial MDG3 indicators to add country-specifi c ones to sharpen the government’s focus on specifi c gender inequalities. One example is Cambodia, which added a new target to reduce all forms of violence against women and children, and expanded the list of indica-tors to include, for instance, literacy rates for 25- to 44- year- olds, to cover women in prime childbearing and working ages (Phavi and Urashima 2006). Similarly, the Dominican Republic expanded its offi cial mea-sures to include indicators of reproductive and sexual health, property rights, and gender- based violence, as well as of institutional performance (Sikoska 2006).



Public Policy to Promote Gender Equality

Székely (chapter 7) singles out the need to change cultural norms, traditions, and day- to- day practices, normally regarded as “private matters,” as a main challenge to the implementation of MDG3.5 Consensus on the desirability of achieving MDG3 is often hampered by mores, traditions, and perceptions of zero-sum games (in public and private life). As result, he makes the point that gender equality policy needs to focus not only on changing observed outcomes but also on changing underlying laws, mechanisms, and cultural patterns. Policy that only focuses on outcomes, he argues, “will swim against the tide,” and will not be effi cient in addressing gender disparities.

The policy framework for promoting gender equality, therefore, calls for changes in laws that defi ne the rules of the game for society, in the behavior of social institutions (including, of great importance, the family) that embody and transmit norms and traditions, and in policies and pro-grams that affect outcomes. Such changes defi ne the scope for government action, as well as underscore the complexity of the task. These “private mat-ters” also help to explain the overall slow progress made to date.

Laws

There is signifi cant scope for changing laws to promote and protect wom-en’s rights, deter and punish transgression of rights, and level the playing fi eld of opportunities for women and men. Considerable work has been done in this area, both nationally and internationally. Examples of legisla-tion range from international conventions on women’s rights (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women), to regional conventions to eliminate violence against women (Belem do Para Convention for Latin American and the Caribbean), to national legislation on equal rights (on ownership of land, property, labor, and so forth), to antidiscrimination legislation, and to reform of regulatory frameworks for fi nancial transactions, business ownership, and the like.

Lessons learned from the experience with legal reform include, fi rst, the importance of enforcement mechanisms to the success of legislation in reducing gender inequalities. Without enforcement, gender-equality legisla-tion remains only a statement of good intentions. Second is the observation that while equality legislation per se may make little difference, the exis-tence of laws condoning inequality acts to perpetuate inequality. Third, changes in laws are more often than not the refl ection, rather than the cause, of social change (World Bank 2007a). See box 1.1 for a discussion of legal reforms to promote gender equality.



Box 1.1Legal Reforms to Promote Gender Equality

Legal frameworks for women’s status and rights are derived from several sources: international laws, constitutional and statutory provisions, and cus-tomary law. Many legal frameworks embody human rights principles of equal-ity and nondiscrimination, but they also refl ect gendered systems and social norms that often defi ne females’ rights only through family relationships. This is true of customary laws that govern domestic relations, such as marriage, divorce, and custody (Chirayath, Sage, and Woolcock 2005). These laws per-ceive women as individuals to be protected in the private sphere in their roles as wives, mothers, daughters, or sisters. Similar protective attitudes spill over to the public sphere as well.

One legal provision with important consequences for women’s rights and opportunities is the legal age of marriage. Early marriage can lead to early pregnancy or school dropout, stifl ing girls’ aspirations for secondary or higher education. International human rights standards encourage countries to establish a minimum legal age of 18 for marriage for both sexes.a In several countries, however, the legal age of marriage is determined by customary provisions, family codes, or personal status laws. Some of these laws diverge from international norms because they sanction a lower legal age for girls than for boys. In a landmark reform resulting from the work of a Royal Com-mission, the Moroccan Personal Status Code (moudawana) was revised to raise the legal age of marriage for girls to 18 years old from 15 (World Bank 2005b).

Legal systems regulating land ownership can either enable or impede women’s rights of access to land. In many developing societies, customary laws determine women’s individual rights to own or inherit property, bring property into marriage, have joint title, or take property out of marriage upon dissolu-tion (World Bank 2005a). Customary norms also determine which land rights a woman, as opposed to a man, may freely exercise. For example, while custom-ary norms may grant women a right to cultivate communal land, only their male relatives have the right to dispose of the land (Kevane and Gray 1999). Statutory provisions can be enacted to override customary provisions with unequal out-comes. However, reforms often must overcome deeply rooted cultural norms and attitudes toward land and incorporate detailed regulations to ensure that women can offi cially register title to that land, for example, through the pro-vision of space on land deeds to record multiple names (Lastarria- Cornheil 2003). Cambodia and the Lao People’s Democratic Republic have enacted progressive legislative and regulatory reforms to mandate and facilitate joint land titling.

(continued)



Institutions

Székely in chapter 7 cogently expresses a widely shared view of the impor-tant role of social institutions, especially the family, in perpetuating gender inequalities. Equally, Das in chapter 6 underscores the role of institutional constraints affecting demand and the ability to use or spend budgets that have been allocated to gender-equality interventions. The experience of South Asia, Das argues, stresses the importance of women’s political voice (through self- help groups, solidarity groups, and elected members in local government) in increasing demand for government investments in gender equality and government accountability.

A third set of reforms relates to labor laws and regulations. Well- intentioned laws to protect women from dangerous jobs or long hours can have pernicious effects on the demand for female labor. So, too, can mater-nity leave and child care; legal provisions that prohibit women from working in certain occupations, industries, or at night; and laws with different retire-ment ages for men and women (World Bank 2006). In Jordan, for example, labor code provisions for long maternity leaves and fi rm- provided child care seem to have limited female employment in export-processing zones (Razzaz 2007).

Legal reforms are important mechanisms for enforcing constitutional guarantees of gender equality. They can provide legally binding provisions contravening discriminatory practices that undermine women’s rights in the name of customary or religious norms. Reforms can provide the enabling legal environment to meet MDG commitments to promote gender equality. Legal reforms to promote women’s rights do not occur easily, though; such reforms often challenge established norms and therefore face strong resistance. Even when enacted, they are often plagued by signifi cant enforcement gaps in many countries. Enforcement weaknesses can be addressed by linking legal reform with leadership at high levels, public awareness campaigns, strong institutions, and fi nancial resources for implementation. This is the approach adopted by Vietnam in support of new gender equity legislation, where a public education and dissemination program was put in place during the 2003–07 seminars and workshops on gender equality and women’s rights organized and funded by different government agencies (UN 2005a).

Source: Authors’ compilation.

a. Article 1 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and Article 16, para 2 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

Box 1.1 (continued)



Conditional cash transfer programs, such as Oportunidades in Mexico (see chapter 7), are perhaps one of the most interesting recent develop-ments in demand-side programs to promote better educational and health outcomes. The results have been impressive. Two features, in particular, of these programs are promising for promoting gender equality. First, these programs function by using fi nancial incentives to change the behavior of families toward their (girl) children—and behavioral change often precedes and determines attitudinal or cultural change. These programs, therefore, should be especially well- suited for promoting cultural changes regarding gender equality, provided that program incentives are adequate and sustained. Second, the evidence to date shows that the effects of these programs on outcomes seem to be larger for groups that had the lowest probability of enrollment at baseline, including females when compared with males, suggesting that conditional cash transfers may be effi cient tools to reduce inequality of opportunities between the genders (Schady 2007).

More generally, the use of fi nancial incentives to bring about changes in the behavior of organizations and institutions, both formal and infor-mal, is comparatively new in the promotion of gender equality. The gov-ernment of Chile has an innovative program of good governance and public sector management, wherein public sector staff are rewarded with yearly bonuses for achieving government program targets (Raczynski 2007). Mainstreaming gender-equality concerns into government pro-grams is one of these targets (see chapter 8 on gender mainstreaming). Results are not yet in, but it should prove interesting to see if concrete incentives, rather than broad mandates without “teeth,” have an effect on gender-equality programming.

Despite general agreement on the importance of institutions in per-petuating gender inequalities, little rigorous study of institutional con-straints has been undertaken, partly because of the diffi culty in measuring such constraints. A recent advancement is an institutional database set up by the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development (OECD), which provides social institution indicators grouped into four categories— family code, physical integrity, civil liberties, and ownership rights—for 161 countries (Jütting and Morrisson 2005).

Policies

While institutions are critical, well- conceived policies also matter, both universal policies and policies designed specifi cally to address gender



disparities. The overall success in raising girls’ primary school enrollment rates in developing countries was the result of concerted will and resources to ensure education for all, rather than education for girls only. In this case, a universal program was able to both increase the level of enrollment for girls and reduce the gender gap in enrollment (World Bank 2007a). Simi-larly, implementation of a national scholarship program for secondary schools led to Bangladesh’s success in increasing female secondary school enrollments (Das in chapter 6).

However, as this review has shown, additional or incremental targeted efforts are often needed to close gender gaps in capabilities and level the playing fi eld of opportunities for girls and women. Increasing girls’ comple-tion rates in primary schooling in countries with good levels of girls’ enroll-ment in school, helping ease the transition between schooling and work for adolescent girls, and expanding women’s access to formal fi nancial services, among others, all require policies specifi cally designed to address gender disparities by focusing on girls and women. Targeting girls and women does not necessarily mean separate programming but it does mean additional or incremental resources going to girls or women only, along with associated political and economic costs.

One example is microfi nance programs that have reduced many of the costs associated with targeting by self- targeting fi nancial services to poor women. By offering very small loans with low transaction costs to the bor-rower (through increased access to loan services and immediacy of loan disbursement), fl exible repayments, and minimal and fl exible collateral requirements, these programs have been successful in reaching women clients without targeting services to them (Lycette and White 1989). It is a well- established fact that women are the majority of clients of microfi -nance programs. Similarly, public works programs have successfully reached poor women when they have offered very low wages, allowed fl exible work-ing hours, reduced transportation costs, and allowed women to bring their children to work (Buvinic 1996).

However, self- targeting is not always possible or desirable. Gender-specifi c and gender-mainstreaming actions, as well as gender- neutral or nontargeted MDG interventions, are also needed to achieve MDG3. (The next section, based on chapter 5, quantifi es unit costs for these different interventions.)

The review of MDG3 indicators in this book also shows that gender equality is multidimensional and that progress in equality in one area (edu-cation) does not automatically translate into progress in other areas (labor force participation). A set of interventions in different sectors is required;



but this is easier said than done. Ambitious objectives and complex designs often result in inaction or failure. Gupta and Mehra (chapter 8) attribute the perceived failure of mainstreaming gender in development agencies to objectives too ambitiously defi ned. They rightly argue that the scope of gender mainstreaming should be more narrowly defi ned and should give priority to building up a mainstreaming record through operations rather than organizational directives. Gupta and Mehra suggest that it is prema-ture to pass judgment on the success or failure of gender mainstreaming because it has not been fully implemented in country- level operations—where it matters most. They make the case for both selectivity in goals and dedicated fi nancial resources for mainstreaming.

Financing for Gender Equality

Substantial administrative, economic, and political costs can be associated with initiatives to promote gender equality. Unfortunately, there are no reli-able estimates for these costs. While gender-mainstreaming interventions may, in fact, entail only minor change in the design of projects, identifying this change will often require signifi cant investments (chapter 8).

Grown et al. (chapter 5) and Ebbeler (2007) estimate costs of actions to achieve MDG3 in selected countries, allowing for costs for gender- specifi c actions, gender-mainstreaming interventions, and gender- neutral or non-targeted MDG interventions. Their efforts expand on a fi rst costing attempt made by the Millennium Project and follow the Millennium Project’s meth-odology of basing costing on needs assessments (Grown, Gupta, and Pande 2005). Chapter 5 estimates costs for fi ve countries. Using the same method, Ebbeler goes beyond estimates and obtains planned expenditures for 10 countries and planned as well as actual expenditures for 3 countries.

Method

At the outset, the diffi culty of calculating the fi nancial costs of reducing gender inequality must be underscored because this inequality is both multidimensional and multisectoral. In addition, an inherent problem underlies any assessment of the resources associated with actions that are mainstreamed—the more fully gender issues are mainstreamed into a pro-gram or project, the more fi nancial resources are mingled and the more dif-fi cult it is to track budget resources assigned specifi cally to gender issues.

Each of the different approaches for costing the MDGs has its own set of advantages and limitations. (In chapter 5, box 5.2 briefl y reviews these



approaches.) The UN Millennium Project developed a list of interventions for each MDG sector (education, health, rural development, urban develop-ment and slum upgrading, water and sanitation, and energy) and estimated the per unit capital and recurrent costs of implementing them. The propor-tion of the cost of each intervention that could be attributed to promoting gender equality was identifi ed and added across interventions to obtain total costs attributable to promoting gender equality.

Interventions that promoted gender equality were divided into MDG3-specifi c interventions and gender- mainstreaming interventions. In practice, gender- specifi c interventions were defi ned as interventions that fell outside the various MDG sectors and were implemented by a Ministry of Women’s Affairs or a non- MDG sector ministry (for instance, labor). Examples of these interventions include funds: to increase telephone support lines for victims of domestic violence in Niger; to alleviate the burdens of female-headed households in Ethiopia; to set a minimum age of marriage in Mauritania; and to provide credit to encourage women’s off- farm work in the Republic of Yemen. Interventions directed at helping to achieve gender equality and empower women in all other MDG sectors and that were implemented by an MDG sector ministry were defi ned as gender- mainstreaming interventions. Examples include increases in health budget allocations for free prenatal care in Tajikistan, as well as resources to educate men about safe motherhood in Kenya through the Health Ministry, increase land access for women in Sen-egal through the Ministry of Agriculture, and improve female literacy rates in Ethiopia through the Education Ministry. Annex 1A to this chapter provides a list of gender- specifi c and gender- mainstreaming interventions by country and their estimated total and per capita annual costs (Ebbeler 2007).

This usage of gender-equality interventions is different from the gener-ally accepted defi nition in which “gender- specifi c” refers to a stand- alone intervention and “gender-mainstreamed” to an action integrated into a larger project, independent of the nature of the executing agency. In addi-tion, the costs of other MDG interventions that were neither gender specifi c nor gender mainstreamed but could indirectly promote gender equality, such as monies for new wells or rural roads, were also estimated (these are termed “gender neutral”).

Estimates

Table 1.1 presents projected average annual per capita fi nancial require-ments to achieve gender equality by 2015 (that is, over the 2006–15 period)


Introduction, Overview, and Future Policy Agenda 21TA

BLE

1.1

Proj

ecte

d A

vera

ge A

nnua

l per

Cap

ita

Fina

ncia

l Req

uire

men

ts t

o A

chie

ve G

ende

r Eq

ualit

y, 2

006

–15

(200

7 $)

Co

un

try

Gen

der

-sp

ecifi

c

inte

rven

tio

ns

($)

Gen

der

-m

ain

stre

amin

g in

terv

enti

on

s($)

Gen

der

-n

eutr

al

inte

rven

tio

ns

($)

Tota

l co

st o

f p

rom

oti

ng

gen

der

eq

ual

itya

($)

Tota

l MD

G

cost

s ($

)

Spec

ifi c

an

d

mai

nst

ream

co

sts

as %

of

tota

l MD

G

cost

s

Tota

l gen

der

co

sts

as %

of

tota

l MD

G

cost

s

Dom

inic

an

R

epub

lic2.

097.

5212

0.31

129.

9229

6.21

3.24

43.8

6

Ethi

opia

b0.

130.

2635

.24

35.6

311

5.07

0.34

30.9

6

Gab

on6.

3814

.90

71.4

892

.76

173.

6212

.26

53.4

3

Keny

a4.

644.

0641

.08

49.7

814

1.95

6.13

35.0

7

Mau

rita

nia

2.38

9.78

38.6

150

.77

114.

2110

.65

44.4

5

Nig

er2.

243.

3643

.19

48.8

010

5.44

5.31

46.2

8

Sene

gal

02.

878.

6011

.47

83.2

53.

4513

.78

Tajik

ista

nc1.

5043

.38

61.2

710

6.15

170.

4926

.33

62.2

6

Togo

2.70

7.05

85.5

295

.27

204.

404.

7746

.61

Yem

en, R

ep. o

f0.

065.

8279

.73

85.6

119

5.94

3.00

43.6

9

Sour

ce: E

bbel

er 2

007;

UN

200

5b.

a. A

ll co

sts

are

base

d on

ave

rage

pro

ject

ed c

osts

for

2006

–15

prov

ided

by

indi

vidu

al c

ount

ry n

eeds

ass

essm

ents

list

ed, a

nd p

er c

apita

cos

ts a

re b

ased

on

the

UN

200

4 po

pula

tion

proj

ectio

ns.

b. T

he m

ains

trea

m i

nter

vent

ions

for

Eth

iopi

a ar

e un

derr

epor

ted

for

the

heal

th s

ecto

r (b

ecau

se t

he M

DG

nee

ds a

sses

smen

t re

sults

are

not

dis

aggr

egat

ed f

or g

oals

4

and

5 on

chi

ld a

nd m

ater

nal h

ealth

).

c. T

he m

ains

trea

min

g in

terv

entio

ns f

or T

ajik

ista

n ar

e ov

erre

port

ed t

o th

e ex

tent

tha

t th

ey i

nclu

de i

nter

vent

ions

to

stre

ngth

en t

he p

rim

ary

heal

th-c

are

syst

em u

nder

the

co

sts

for

goal

s 4

and

5.



for 10 countries that were involved in the UN Millennium planning exercise and provided the data on planned expenditures (Ebbeler 2007).

The variation in costs between individual countries may be partly a function of underestimating or overestimating costs because of reduced capacity to account for and disaggregate costs by gender. Nevertheless, excluding outlier values, overall planned costs for gender- specifi c and gender- mainstreaming interventions vary annually between $5.6 and $21 per capita (in 2007 US dollars) and between 3 percent and 12.3 percent of total MDG costs. When the share of MDG interventions indirectly benefi t-ing women is added, annual costs increase to between $36 and $106 per capita and to between 31 percent and 53.4 percent of all MDG costs.

Using the same method, estimates for fi ve countries (Bangladesh, Cam-bodia, Ghana, Tanzania, and Uganda) in chapter 5 show roughly comparable percentages of all MDG costs associated with increased gender equality. At the same time, however, the authors of that chapter attribute a larger share of costs to gender-specifi c and gender- mainstreaming interventions (presumably because the desk exercise included a larger range of possible interventions) and a smaller share to gender- neutral interventions. Grown et al. found that the share of MDG interventions directly benefi ting women varied between 23 percent and 30 percent of all MDG costs, and when interventions indirectly benefi ting women were added, the share of all gen-der costs was between 35 percent and 52 percent of all MDG costs (and between $37 and $57 per capita per year).

The authors of chapter 5 also estimated the additional fi nancing low- income countries would need to implement gender- specifi c and gender- mainstreaming interventions for 2006–15, based on the Millennium Project method for estimating MDG fi nancing needs. For 2006, this value varied between $8.6 billion (assuming that governments commit domestic resources to gender-equality interventions in the same proportion as their contribution to overall MDG interventions) and $29.7 billion (if no domes-tic resources are used to fi nance these interventions). For 2015, these values rise to $23.8 billion and $83.2 billion.

These costing exercises make the obvious but often overlooked point that achieving MDG3 costs money. The exercises also result in a useful listing of planned gender-specifi c and gender- mainstreaming interven-tions with comparative unit costs and show that the portion of total MDG costs devoted to gender equality is comparatively small. Costs increase to between 31 percent and 53 percent of all MDG costs when interventions indirectly benefi ting women are added. These interventions constitute



the largest component of the MDG gender costs and highlight the critical importance of cross- sector investments to achieve gender-equality goals.

In addition to the national cost estimates based on planned expendi-tures, Ebbeler (2007) collects information for three countries (the Domini-can Republic, Kenya, and the Republic of Yemen) on actual expenditures for gender interventions (see table 1.2). Despite progress in incorporating gender needs into the budget process in these countries, only a small proportion of planned expenditures for gender- specifi c action had translated into actual identifi ed disbursements (on average, less than 15 percent). This low propor-tion is partly the result of the inability of national systems to disaggregate budget resources by gender. It is also the result of countries’ slow progress in implementing the gender-equality agenda. Countries are making progress, but in small, incremental steps; the challenge of MDG3 is one of intensifying and scaling up gender-equality actions.

Ebbeler (2007) also collects information on offi cial development assis-tance (ODA) received from international donors to promote gender equal-ity (both gender- specifi c and gender- mainstreaming interventions). For the three countries (Dominican Republic, Kenya, and the Republic of Yemen) analyzed in detail (see table 1.3), the 2001–05 period saw an increase in the absolute amount of funding but no linear year- by- year trend in percent-age devoted to gender equality— although the percentage of gross disburse-ments spent on gender- specifi c and gender-mainstreaming interventions was higher in 2005 than in 2001 for all three countries.

TABLE 1.2Planned per Capita MDG Expenditures for Gender Interventions Versus Actual Reported National Budget Allocations Disaggregated by Gender, FY2006($)

Gender specifi c (Women’s Ministry)

Gender mainstreaming (All other sectors)

Country Planned Actual Planned Actual

Dominican Republic 2.09 0.73 7.52 —

Kenya 4.64 0.14 4.06 —

Yemen, Rep. of 0.06 — 5.82 0.13

Source: Ebbeler 2007.

Note: — = Not available. Planned expenditures are based on estimates from individual 2005 MDG needs assessments and actual expenditures are based on actual reported national budget allocations.



Development Resources

Where should the fi nancing for scaling up gender-equality work come from? Given that investing in gender equality is “smart economics”—these investments yield tangible development returns, especially for poverty reduction— countries, in theory, should fi nance this work through domes-tic resource mobilization. While in the long term this is the most desirable option, in the short term, grants or loans are needed to jump start, comple-ment, and scale up this work. Grants and loans are justifi ed, too, because many of these investments yield benefi ts only in the long term, given that there are large public externalities, and that knowledge about the solutions to gender inequality is an international public good.

Development financing has grown substantially in recent years, although it still falls signifi cantly short of the commitments made at the 2000 Monterrey Conference (World Bank 2007a). In addition, non-traditional sources of development fi nancing have multiplied. Unfortu-nately, tracking resources assigned to gender equality is diffi cult, partly because of the problem inherent in disaggregating resources that are mainstreamed and partly because many funding sources do not track gender-equality allocations.

An exception is the effort of the OECD/DAC gender marker to mea-sure offi cial development resources devoted to gender equality. The gender marker uses a somewhat (but not wholly) comparable defi nition to that of Grown et al. (chapter 5) to derive estimates of the amount of ODA that is allocated to promote gender equality. OECD/DAC applies the gender

TABLE 1.3Donor Disbursements for Gender-Specifi c and Gender-Mainstreaming Interventions: Percentage of Total Gross Disbursements and per Capita Amounts

(2007 $)

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

%$ per capita %

$ per capita %

$ per capita %

$ per capita %

$ per capita

Dominican Republic 7.1 5.4 3.6 4.9 11.4 16.2 9.9 14.4 7.2 9.7

Kenya 11.7 33.0 11.8 37.9 9.1 42.1 10.4 65.5 19.4 133.0

Yemen, Rep. of 6.0 5.7 7.5 14.5 9.9 13.9 18.1 32.5 13.0 35.0

Source: Ebbeler 2007.



marker to all funding where gender equality is the principal or a signifi cant objective of aid. Examples of aid classifi ed as “principal” include funding for legal literacy for women and for male networks against gender violence. An example of aid coded as “signifi cant” includes funding potable water connections while ensuring women’s access to this water. This gender marker categorization, therefore, is somewhat more restrictive than that of the Millennium Project because it does not fully count the category (in chapter 5) of aid that only indirectly benefi ts women.

Given the desirable domestic commitment of resources for gender- specifi c and gender-mainstreaming interventions, the remaining fi nancing gap to implement MDG3 in low-income countries— estimated starting at $8.6 billion in the fi rst year and averaging $13 billion yearly, using UN Mil-lennium Project calculations— is large but could be met if donors, private foundations, and other nontraditional sources of funding increased their spending on MDG3.

The OECD/DAC gender marker has shown that during the 2001–05 period, 16 of 23 donors reported on the gender marker, and this reporting yielded annual amounts of $5 billion. This amount represents 25 percent of total ODA allocated by sector. In the 2005–06 period, this figure increased to $8.5 billion, revealing donors’ renewed commitment to gen-der equality.6 The table in box 1.2 reports, by donor country, the share of ODA that is designed to promote gender equality (OECD 2007, 2008).

The $100 million gap between this latest fi gure and the lowest estimate of $8.6 billion may have been partly met already because not all donors reported to the gender marker. A moderate increase in ODA funding, tap-ping private foundations and other nontraditional funding sources, and most important, domestic resource mobilization—crucial for ensuring aid effectiveness—should go a long way toward overcoming fi nancial con-straints to promoting gender equality.

However, the funding gap is not necessarily the main or only constraint to scaling up MDG3 implementation. This overview has mentioned that changes in laws, institutions, and policies all matter for scaling up gen-der-equality objectives. While most of these changes come with a price tag, funding for them sometimes is available in domestic budgets, as Das (chapter 6) shows for Bangladesh and India for education and health— but this funding is not fully used for benefi ting women or the poor because of institutional bottlenecks. Ultimately, specifi c country circumstances will defi ne the main constraints to attaining MDG3 and the reforms needed to accelerate progress.



Total Sector-Allocable ODA, 2006

Country

Total sector allocable ODA

(million $)

Gender equality–focused ODA

(percent)

European Commission 9,185 40

Japan 8,106 6

Netherlands 5,011 29

United Kingdom 4,832 45

Germany 4,777 59

Sweden 1,920 86

Norway 1,702 26

Canada 1,323 57

Australia 1,317 45

Belgium 844 48

Denmark 742 39

Finland 394 44

New Zealand 204 66

Austria 197 34

Portugal 160 1

Greece 139 36

Source: OECD 2008.

Box 1.2Sources of ODA to Promote Gender Equality

Investment in gender equality and women’s empowerment is vital for the achievement of MDG3. Ideally, domestic resource mobilization should be the main source of fi nancing; however, external aid can play an important role in supporting this development.

To date, the best available measurement of the proportions of ODA focused on gender equality and women’s empowerment are made available by OECD, to which countries report on the gender marker. In the context of cross- country comparisons of ODA, the proportion of aid being screened (coverage ratios) varies between countries and those countries that do not report to the gender marker, or for which the marker coverage is too low, are not included.

The table below illustrates that commitment to gender equality varies signifi cantly among donors. Some of the largest donors, such as Japan and the Netherlands, have relatively low shares of aid focused on gender equality. The countries with the highest percentage of gender equality–focused aid are Sweden (86 percent), New Zealand (66 percent), and Germany (59 percent).


Introduction, Overview, and Future Policy Agenda 27A

NN

EX 1

A

Cou

ntry

Exa

mpl

es o

f Pr

opos

ed B

udge

t A

lloca

tion

s fo

r Sc

alin

g U

p G

ende

r-Sp

ecifi

c an

d M

ains

trea

min

g In

terv

enti

ons

Inte

rven

tio

nC

ou

ntr

y

Ave

rage

an

nu

al

cost

, 200

6–1

5 (m

illio

n 2

007

$)

Ave

rage

an

nu

al

cost

per

cap

ita,

20

06–1

5 (2

007

$)

Gen

der

spec

ifi c

Elim

inat

e ge

nder

-bas

ed v

iole

nce

thro

ugh

rais

ing

awar

enes

s, a

buse

hot

lines

, te

mpo

rary

hou

sing

for

vict

ims,

and

sen

sitiv

ity t

rain

ing

for

polic

e an

d m

ilita

ryD

omin

ican

R

epub

lic12

.98

1.36

Stre

ngth

en in

stitu

tions

to m

ains

trea

m g

ende

r, de

fend

equ

al r

ight

s to

pro

pert

y an

d in

heri

tanc

e, a

nd p

rom

ote

equa

l em

ploy

men

t opp

ortu

nitie

sD

omin

ican

R

epub

lic 4

.29

0.45

Figh

t HIV

/AID

S am

ong

fem

ale

sex

wor

kers

Gab

on 1

.60

1.04

Stre

ngth

en m

inis

trie

s an

d go

vern

men

t age

ncie

s to

han

dle

gend

er is

sues

and

im

plem

ent i

nter

natio

nal a

gree

men

ts o

n en

ding

gen

der

disc

rim

inat

ion

Ken

ya 5

2.30

1.3

2

Bui

ld c

oalit

ions

and

mob

ilize

com

mun

ities

to e

nsur

e w

omen

’s p

artic

ipat

ion

in

polit

ical

and

eco

nom

ic a

ffair

s an

d ra

ise

awar

enes

s of

rep

rodu

ctiv

e ri

ghts

and

vi

olen

ceK

enya

62.

50 1

.58

Supp

ort s

etup

of d

ata

syst

ems

and

incr

ease

dat

a co

llect

ion

of s

ex-d

isag

greg

ated

in

form

atio

n to

mon

itor

prog

ress

tow

ard

the

gend

er-e

qual

ity g

oal

Ken

ya 2

6.10

0.6

6

Prom

ote

awar

enes

s of

wom

en’s

rig

hts

to le

gal r

edre

ss a

nd s

tate

ser

vice

s an

d im

prov

e st

ate

resp

onsi

vene

ss to

inci

denc

es o

f vio

lenc

e an

d vi

ctim

reh

abili

tatio

nK

enya

24.

10 0

.61

Tran

sitio

n of

sec

onda

ry-s

choo

l gir

l gra

duat

es to

voc

atio

nal t

rain

ing

and

the

wor

kpla

ceN

iger

35.

70 2

.13

Gen

der

mai

nstre

amin

g

Con

stru

ct 3

0 ne

w a

nd r

ehab

ilita

te 4

3 ch

ild d

ay c

are

cent

ers

and

cons

truc

t em

erge

ncy

and

com

mun

ity c

are

shel

ters

Dom

inic

an

Rep

ublic

1.5

6 0

.16

(con

tinue

d)



Cou

ntry

Exa

mpl

es o

f Pr

opos

ed B

udge

t A

lloca

tion

s fo

r Sc

alin

g U

p G

ende

r-Sp

ecifi

c an

d M

ains

trea

min

g In

terv

enti

ons

(con

tinue

d)

Inte

rven

tio

nC

ou

ntr

y

Ave

rage

an

nu

al

cost

, 200

6–1

5 (m

illio

n 2

007

$)

Ave

rage

an

nu

al

cost

per

cap

ita,

20

06–1

5 (2

007

$)

Prov

ide

subs

idie

s to

mot

hers

with

chi

ldre

n in

pre

prim

ary,

pri

mar

y, a

nd s

econ

dary

sc

hool

Dom

inic

an

Rep

ublic

17.

05 1

.78

Prov

ide

emer

genc

y ob

stet

ric

care

, cap

acity

bui

ldin

g fo

r pu

blic

hea

lth s

taff,

and

an

tena

tal a

nd n

ewbo

rn c

are

to r

educ

e m

ater

nal m

orta

lity

by 7

5 pe

rcen

tD

omin

ican

R

epub

lic 1

0.06

1.0

5

Prov

ide

ener

gy s

ubsi

dies

to fe

mal

e-he

aded

hou

seho

lds

to fa

cilit

ate

inco

me

gene

ratio

n th

roug

h bi

omas

s an

d re

new

able

ene

rgy,

pet

role

um, a

nd e

lect

rici

tyK

enya

95.

42 2

.41

Dec

reas

e m

ater

nal m

orta

lity

thro

ugh

fam

ily p

lann

ing

for

wom

en a

nd te

ens,

m

anag

emen

t of m

alar

ia a

nd a

nem

ia in

pre

gnan

cy, a

nd e

mer

genc

y ob

stet

rics

Se

nega

l 9

.85

0.7

4

Incr

ease

mic

rocr

edit

prog

ram

s fo

r sm

all f

arm

ers,

tar

gete

d sp

ecifi

cally

at w

omen

Tajik

ista

n 5

.65

0.8

1

Free

sch

ool l

unch

tar

gete

d to

gir

ls o

f poo

r fa

mili

es in

pri

mar

y gr

ades

1–4

Tajik

ista

n 1

4.55

2.0

8

Re-

enro

ll in

pri

mar

y an

d se

cond

ary

educ

atio

n m

othe

rs w

ho c

ould

not

pre

viou

sly

cont

inue

the

ir e

duca

tions

bec

ause

of m

arri

age

or b

irth

Togo

10.

30 1

.45

Incr

ease

fem

ale

med

ical

sta

ff re

crui

tmen

t, up

grad

e cl

inic

s w

ith c

ompr

ehen

sive

ob

stet

ric

care

, inc

reas

e m

edic

al c

over

age

of d

eliv

erie

s, a

nd p

rovi

de fa

mily

pl

anni

ngYe

men

, R

ep. o

f 7

5.50

3.0

3

Sour

ce: E

bbel

er 2

007.



Notes 1. Gender-specifi c interventions refer to actions with the explicit objective to

target gender equality (e.g., law reform that gives women and men equal rights to own property). Gender-mainstreaming interventions are those that specifi cally target women but do not necessarily have as the main objective increasing gender equality (e.g., a micro credit program for small farmers that specifi cally targets women). A gender-neutral intervention is an action that promotes gender equality but was not specifi cally targeted to do so. An example is the construction of a dwelling that in a community allows the community women to work instead of spending time fetching water.

2. The following discussion draws on World Bank (2007a) and Morrison, Raju, and Sinha (2007).

3. This is the same strategy that was used in the 2007 Global Monitoring Report (World Bank 2007a).

4. Out of 131 countries with data available, 67 have met the offi cial MDG3 target of parity in primary education and 77 out of 124 countries with data available have met the target in secondary education. The primary reason for differences between performance in meeting MDG3 goals for primary and secondary edu-cation separately and primary and secondary education combined is the wide discrepancy found in primary education gender ratio and secondary education gender ratio for some countries.

5. This section is based on a number of background papers that were commissioned in preparation for the 2007 Global Monitoring Report (World Bank 2007a).

6. It might also be caused by exchange rate effects, that is, the appreciation of currencies from countries that have relatively high allocations to gender.

References and Other ResourcesAnderson, J. R., and G. Feder. 2003. “Rural Extension Services.” Policy Research

Working Paper No. 2976, World Bank, Washington, D.C.Anderson, K., E. M. King, and Y. Wang. 2003. “Market Returns, Transfers and

Demand for Schooling in Malaysia, 1976–89.” Journal of Development Studies 39 (3): 1–28.

Baydas, M. M., R. L. Meyer, and N. Aguilera- Alfred. 1994. “Discrimination against Women in Formal Credit Markets: Reality or Rhetoric?” World Development 22 (7): 1073–82.

Bruns, B., A. Mingat, and R. Rakotomalala. 2003. “Achieving Universal Primary Education by 2015: A Chance for Every Child.” World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Buvinic, M. 1996. “Promoting Employment among the Urban Poor in Latin America and the Caribbean: A Gender Analysis.” Discussion Paper 12, Issues in Development, International Labour Organization, Geneva.

Buvinic, M., and M. Berger. 1990. “Sex Differences in Access to a Small Enterprise Development Fund in Peru.” World Development 18 (5): 695–705.

Buvinic, M., J. C. Guzmán, and C. B. Lloyd. 2007. “Gender Shapes Adolescence.” Development Outreach, Nov. 2007, World Bank Institute, Washington, D.C.



Chirayath, L., C. Sage, and M. Woolcock. 2005. “Customary Law and Policy Reform: Engaging with the Plurality of Justice System.” Background Paper for World Development Report 2006: Equity and Development. World Bank, Washing-ton, D.C.

Croppenstedt, A., M. Demeke, and M. M. Meschi. 2003. “Technology Adoption in the Presence of Constraints: The Case of Fertilizer Demand in Ethiopia.” Review of Development Economics 7 (1): 58– 70.

Das Gupta. November 2007. Personal communication. Senior Social Scientist with the Development Research Group.

Deere, C. D., and M. Leon. 2001. Empowering Women: Land and Property Rights in Latin America. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Delamonica, E., S. Malhotra, and J. Vandemoortele. 2001. “Is EFA Affordable? Estimating the Global Minimum Cost of ‘Education for All.’” Division of Evaluation, Policy and Planning, Staff Working Paper No. 01-01, UNICEF, New York.

Devarajan, S., M. J. Miller, and E. V. Swanson. 2002. “Goals for Development: His-tory, Prospects and Costs.” Policy Research Working Paper No. 2819, World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Doss, C. 2005. “The Effects of Intrahousehold Property Ownership on Expenditure Patterns in Ghana.” Journal of African Economies 15: 149–80.

Dufl o, E. 2003. “Grandmothers and Granddaughters: Old Age Pension and Intra-Household Allocation in South Africa.” World Bank Economic Review 17 (1): 1–25.

Ebbeler, J. L. 2007. “Financial Requirement to Achieve Millennium Development Goals on Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment: A Review of Country Experiences.” World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Grown, C., G. Gupta, and A. Kes. 2005. Taking Action: Achieving Gender Equality and Empowering Women. London: Earthscan and the Millennium Project.

Holla, A., R. Jensen, and E. Oster. 2007. “Daughters as Wealth? The Effects of Cash Incentives on Sex Ratios.” Working Paper, Department of Economics, Brown University.

Jensen, R., and E. Oster. 2007. “The Power of TV: Cable Television and Women’s Status in India.” NBER Working Paper No. 13305, National Bureau of Eco-nomic Research, Cambridge, MA.

Jütting, J. P., and C. Morrisson. 2005. “Changing Social Institutions to Improve the Status of Women in Developing Countries.” OECD Development Centre Policy Briefs No. 27, OECD, Paris.

Kevane, M., and L. C. Gray. 1999. “A Woman’s Field Is Made at Night: Gendered Land Rights and Norms in Burkina Faso.” Feminist Economics 5 (3): 1–26.

Klasen, S. 2006. “UNDP’s Gender- Related Measures: Some Conceptual Problems and Possible Solutions.” Journal of Human Development 7 (2): 243–74.

Lastarria- Cornhiel, S., S. Agurto, J. Brown, and S. Rosales. 2003. “Joint Titling in Nicaragua, Indonesia, and Honduras: Rapid Appraisal Synthesis.” Land Ten-ure Center Report, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.

Lewis, M., and M. Lockheed. 2006. Inexcusable Absence: Why 60 Million Girls Still Aren’t in School and What to Do about It. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development.



Lycette, M., and K. White. 1989. “Improving Women’s Access to Credit in Latin America and the Caribbean: Policy and Project Recommendations.” In Wom-en’s Futures: Assistance to the Informal Sector in Latin America, eds. Marguerite Berger and Mayra Buvinic. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.

Morrison, A., D. Raju, and N. Sinha. 2007. “Gender Equality, Poverty, and Eco-nomic Growth.” Background paper for Global Monitoring Report 2007. World Bank, Washington, D.C.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development). 2007. “Aid in Support of Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment.” OECD, Paris.

———. 2008. “Aid in Support of Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment.” OECD, Paris.

Phavi, I. K., and C. Urashima. 2006. “Policies to Promote Women’s Economic Opportunities in Cambodia.” Presented at the High- Level Consultation: Promoting the Gender Equality MDG— The Implementation Challenge. World Bank, Washington, DC, February 16.

Pitt, M. M., and S. R. Khandker. 1998. “The Impact of Group- Based Credit Programs on Poor Households in Bangladesh: Does the Gender of Participants Matter?” Journal of Political Economy 106: 958–96.

Quisumbing, A. R. 1994. “Gender Differences in Agricultural Productivity: A Sur-vey of Empirical Evidence.” Education and Social Policy Discussion Paper No. 36, World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Quisumbing, A. R., J. P. Estudillo, and K. Otsuka. 2004. Land and Schooling: Trans-ferring Wealth Across Generations. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Raczynski, D. 2007. “Tranversalización del enfoque de genero en el proceso presu-puestario del Estado: Estudio de case en Chile.” Asesorias para el Desarrollo, Santiago.

Ratusi, M., and A. V. Swamy. 1999. “Explaining Ethnic Differentials in Credit Mar-ket Outcomes in Zimbabwe.” Economic Development and Cultural Change 47: 585–604.

Rawls, J. 1971. A Theory of Social Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Razzaz, S. 2007. “Resolving Jordan’s Labor Market Paradox of Concurrent Eco-nomic Growth and High Unemployment.” Report No. 39201–JO, World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Roemer, J. E. 1993. “A Pragmatic Theory of Responsibility for the Egalitarian Plan-ner.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 22: 146–66.

———. 2002. “Equality of Opportunity: A Progress Report.” Social Choice and Wel-fare 19: 455–71.

Rubalcava, L., G. Teruel, and D. Thomas. 2004. “Spending, Saving and Public Transfers Paid to Women.” Working Paper 024-04, California Center for Popu-lation Research, University of California, Los Angeles.

Saito, K., H. Mekonnen, and D. Spurling. 1994. Raising the Productivity of Women Farmers in Sub- Saharan Africa. Washington, D.C: World Bank.

Schady, N. 2007. “How Much Do Girls Benefi t from Conditional Cash Transfers?” PowerPoint presentation to the Gender and Development Board, World Bank, Washington, D.C.



Sikoska, T. 2006. “Policy Interventions to Meet MDG3 in Middle Income Coun-tries: The Case of the Dominican Republic.” Presented at the High- Level Consultation: Promoting the Gender Equality MDG— The Implementation Challenge. World Bank, Washington, D.C, February 16.

Storey, D. J. 2004. “Racial and Gender Discrimination in the Micro Firms Credit Market? Evidence from Trinidad and Tobago.” Small Business Economics 23 (5): 401–22.

Tzannatos, Z. 2007. “Monitoring Progress in Gender Equality in the Labor Market.” Presented at the High- Level Consultation: Promoting the Gender Equality MDG—The Implementation Challenge. World Bank, Washington, DC, February 16.

Udry, C. 1996. “Gender, Agricultural Production, and the Theory of the House-hold.” Journal of Political Economy 104: 1010–46.

United Nations. 2005a. United Nations Document CEDAW C/VNM/5–6. 22 June 2005, Combined 5th and 6th Report, Vietnam.

———. 2005b. World Population Prospects: The 2004 Revision. New York: United Nations, Economic and Social Affairs.

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 1995. Human Development Report 1995: Gender and Human Development. New York: UNDP.

———. 2005. Investing in Development: A Practical Plan to Achieve the Millennium Development Goals. UN Millennium Project. New York: UNDP.

WEF (World Economic Forum). 2007. “The Global Gender Gap Report 2007.” Geneva.

WHO (World Health Organization). 2002. World Report on Violence and Health. Geneva: WHO.

World Bank. 2005a. “Gender Issues and Best Practices in Land Administration Proj-ects.” Agriculture and Rural Development Department, World Bank Report No. 32571-GLB, Washington, D.C.

———. 2005b. “The Status and Progress of Women in the Middle East and North Africa Region.” World Bank, Washington, D.C.

———. 2006. “Investment Climate Survey Online.” http://iresearch.worldbank.org/InvestmentClimate/.

———. 2007a. Global Monitoring Report 2007: Millennium Development Goals: Con-fronting the Challenges of Gender Equality and Fragile States. Washington, DC: World Bank.

———. 2007b. World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development. Washing-ton, DC: World Bank.




Date post:	06-Dec-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

OVERVIEW Equality - CacheFly

Documents